I'm back for the second day in a row. This time with three reviews: Van Helsing, Ichi the Killer and Dawn of the Dead. I'll watch and review some good Japanese cinema later on this summer. Also, check below for my look at The Ladykillers as well as preview of stuff to come this summer from filmbrats.com! Spend your lazy days with us. Enjoy.
Van Helsing
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
Dr. Gabriel Van Helsing hunts monsters for a living. A secret religious organization bent on riding the world of evil tells him that if he does their bidding, they’ll give Van Helsing his memory back. Not only does he have to hunt down Dracula and the Wolfman, but he must also keep this woman, Anna, alive so she can help overturn the curse of Dracula.
The film starts off great – for about 5 minutes. We have a black and white flashback to the time when Frankenstein created his monster. (The monster is in the movie as well, by the way.) It appears to be a shot-by-shot homage to the classic film. It borrows the same lighting and camera angles and the sets look mighty familiar. The windmill even comes into play. The similarities and references start to fade away when Dracula comes in and starts a dialogue with the good-intentioned doctor. The sequence is marred by the first wave of special effects (to be followed by many more). Afterwards, the film turns to color and never looks back. The flashback was from a whopping one year prior. If you ask me, that’s not enough time to warrant a black and white prologue, no matter what it was trying to do.
The rest of the movie falls farther and farther down hill. It takes from many different movies with the monster movies being more of the obvious. Also there’s a secret lab with gadgets very reminiscent to the Bond films. I saw (possibly read-into) a bit of Indiana Jones grappling work/problem solving. It mashed together several classic stories just like “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” There’s even a “Lion King” moment that you can’t miss. I half expected those pods Dracula keeps to contain either “Killer Klowns From Outer Space” or “Gremlins.”
I hated this thing. Whatever it was trying to be. It was hokey and dumb. The dialogue was cheesy and contrived. It furthered the plot, but at the cost of being natural and good. The acting was just as stupid. If you want overacting, this is the movie for you. Why can’t people realize that villains are more scary and effective when the evil is subdued? There’s a lot of screaming and maniacal behavior. Blah.
The special effects look stupid, too. I can’t wait for the next couple of decades to pass, so that I can see realistic looking special effects. I hate CGI and this movie is loaded with it. What else can I say?
If you liked the recent “Mummy” movies, then you have a better shot at liking this, because it’s done by the same guy: Stephen Sommers. I at least found “The Mummy” to be fun. “Van Helsing” is not. It’s over two-hours long and I just wanted it to end virtually right away. It’s a truly disappointing way to start off the summer season. This verges on one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Skip it.
++++++
Ichi the Killer
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
A yakuza boss has disappeared along with 100 million yen. The gang thinks he was kidnapped. The other gangs think he stole the loot and ran. What none of them know is that a consummate killing machine named Ichi has killed him. What starts out as an attempt to spark a gang war turns into a hunt for the elusive assassin. Can the yakuza stop Ichi?
The movie is just too stylistic for its own good. It needs to pick and choose. The opening creates freeze frames on characters and puts on a huge video effects show. The rest of the thing is like an effect bonanza. It tries too hard to be hip and cool by being flashy and in your face. Ultimately, none of these post-production masturbations provide anything of substance beyond a headache. I guess they’re trying to compensate for the lack of interesting visuals and story.
The movie had potential. Take the razor-heeled suit and the blinding rage away from the killer and Ichi the human is a puppy dog eyed and mannered person. He’s very non-confrontational, but when he’s fed the right information (or lies) he snaps and becomes the extreme version of that quiet kid in your high school. That sounds relatively interesting, right? Throw in some good fight scenes a couple quick side-stories and you’re good to go.
Really, it’s very boring. The story gets cluttered quickly, but it doesn’t really matter who’s who anyway. The people are just there to kill time and get killed. The movie lasts over two hours. The fight scenes are few and very far apart. In fact, you’re more likely to see the aftermath than any action that causes the red-walled rooms. I felt cheated. The guy has the semi-cool futuristic racecar driver suit with the switchblade heels. Find an actor that can do the acrobatics required to effectively use that stuff and let us in on the action. That’s what everyone wants to see. Who cares who hates whom? There’s also a character that had his jaw line cut. If he takes the fasteners out, he could open up really wide and do some damage. It took a long time to see it in action and the visual effect of it looked horrible and (once again) disappointing.
Here’s a piece of Japanese cinema that should have stayed in comic book/manga form. Actually, I take that back. It should have been made into a movie, but a much better one. Either modify or forget the storyline. Add more visible action. Stop the visual effect overload. Make it much less annoying and much shorter. Then get back to me.
+++++++++
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
The dead just keep on living. They’ve started to run amok across the nation and probably the world. They’re everywhere and they’re hungry for living tissue. The only option is to run, but pretty soon, no place will be safe. What do you do? Well, if you’re like the characters in the movie, you gather up as many survivors as possible and head to the mall. Seal it off and try to think of a game plan.
I have not yet seen the original (as of May 2004), so I can’t compare the two. Maybe not knowing what George A. Romero did with the 1978 version enhanced my enjoyment of this contemporary film.
The zombies look just about like you’d expect, which actually is saying a lot. Many zombie movies seem to half-ass the make-up, because they’ll be far away and not all that visible (right “House of the Dead?”). Here, the zombies look like the living dead, not the living pretending to be dead. There is a lot of conformity and templating involved with how they seem to have been designed. There aren’t really any standouts as far as decomposition or manner of dead is concerned. They all pretty much look the same. But they all look like zombies. And I couldn’t find a single computer generated person. Even in the wide group shots. Bravo.
That’s not to say they didn’t use computer effects. The large scale destruction shots near the beginning of the film make obvious use of the computer as people get run over and massive fires get started. It looks really hokey and fake and at the time, I assumed it was intentional. At this early point, I thought we could expect more of the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the movie pokes fun at the genre. Too many horror films seem to rely on that these days. I’m happy to announce that “Dawn of the Dead” does not.
In fact, the approach is far different from any of the recent horror movies I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t know if I should credit the original or this outing. The zombies move faster and are rather menacing. The suspense level is high when it needs to be with few false alarms, just delayed inevitable jumps and scares. The credits hooked me right away. They mix title cards with flashes of attacks, gore and hinting at the ensuing national chaos. The music choice mixed blatantly obvious hardcore fare with more intelligent satirical songs that still measure on the creepiness scale. What really stands out though, is the characterization.
Each person has a backstory. Each person has proper motivation. Each person has a personality and depth. And the acting is very natural and, dare I say, good. How often can you say that in this genre? The dialogue moves along smoothly and the entire plot and storyline goes off without a hitch. There are no laughable moments except for those intentionally placed. The film swiftly runs its course without sacrificing good storytelling. The only big thing is that zombies aren’t really explained, but it’s scarier that way and not really needed once you get into the movie (which shouldn’t take long). A lot of credit has to be given to director Zack Snyder, especially with this being his big-time debut. I look forward to seeing what he does next. Also, to the writer, James Gunn, whom I panned in my review of “Scooby-Doo” saying he should go back to Troma. I guess I should have he should go back to horror. He seems to have a knack for it.
It’s rare that a horror movie comes along that is actually satisfying. It may not scare the audience non-stop, but it proves that something good can come out of the genre. Let’s hope Hollywood starts making more like this one.
Van Helsing
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
Dr. Gabriel Van Helsing hunts monsters for a living. A secret religious organization bent on riding the world of evil tells him that if he does their bidding, they’ll give Van Helsing his memory back. Not only does he have to hunt down Dracula and the Wolfman, but he must also keep this woman, Anna, alive so she can help overturn the curse of Dracula.
The film starts off great – for about 5 minutes. We have a black and white flashback to the time when Frankenstein created his monster. (The monster is in the movie as well, by the way.) It appears to be a shot-by-shot homage to the classic film. It borrows the same lighting and camera angles and the sets look mighty familiar. The windmill even comes into play. The similarities and references start to fade away when Dracula comes in and starts a dialogue with the good-intentioned doctor. The sequence is marred by the first wave of special effects (to be followed by many more). Afterwards, the film turns to color and never looks back. The flashback was from a whopping one year prior. If you ask me, that’s not enough time to warrant a black and white prologue, no matter what it was trying to do.
The rest of the movie falls farther and farther down hill. It takes from many different movies with the monster movies being more of the obvious. Also there’s a secret lab with gadgets very reminiscent to the Bond films. I saw (possibly read-into) a bit of Indiana Jones grappling work/problem solving. It mashed together several classic stories just like “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” There’s even a “Lion King” moment that you can’t miss. I half expected those pods Dracula keeps to contain either “Killer Klowns From Outer Space” or “Gremlins.”
I hated this thing. Whatever it was trying to be. It was hokey and dumb. The dialogue was cheesy and contrived. It furthered the plot, but at the cost of being natural and good. The acting was just as stupid. If you want overacting, this is the movie for you. Why can’t people realize that villains are more scary and effective when the evil is subdued? There’s a lot of screaming and maniacal behavior. Blah.
The special effects look stupid, too. I can’t wait for the next couple of decades to pass, so that I can see realistic looking special effects. I hate CGI and this movie is loaded with it. What else can I say?
If you liked the recent “Mummy” movies, then you have a better shot at liking this, because it’s done by the same guy: Stephen Sommers. I at least found “The Mummy” to be fun. “Van Helsing” is not. It’s over two-hours long and I just wanted it to end virtually right away. It’s a truly disappointing way to start off the summer season. This verges on one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Skip it.
++++++
Ichi the Killer
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
A yakuza boss has disappeared along with 100 million yen. The gang thinks he was kidnapped. The other gangs think he stole the loot and ran. What none of them know is that a consummate killing machine named Ichi has killed him. What starts out as an attempt to spark a gang war turns into a hunt for the elusive assassin. Can the yakuza stop Ichi?
The movie is just too stylistic for its own good. It needs to pick and choose. The opening creates freeze frames on characters and puts on a huge video effects show. The rest of the thing is like an effect bonanza. It tries too hard to be hip and cool by being flashy and in your face. Ultimately, none of these post-production masturbations provide anything of substance beyond a headache. I guess they’re trying to compensate for the lack of interesting visuals and story.
The movie had potential. Take the razor-heeled suit and the blinding rage away from the killer and Ichi the human is a puppy dog eyed and mannered person. He’s very non-confrontational, but when he’s fed the right information (or lies) he snaps and becomes the extreme version of that quiet kid in your high school. That sounds relatively interesting, right? Throw in some good fight scenes a couple quick side-stories and you’re good to go.
Really, it’s very boring. The story gets cluttered quickly, but it doesn’t really matter who’s who anyway. The people are just there to kill time and get killed. The movie lasts over two hours. The fight scenes are few and very far apart. In fact, you’re more likely to see the aftermath than any action that causes the red-walled rooms. I felt cheated. The guy has the semi-cool futuristic racecar driver suit with the switchblade heels. Find an actor that can do the acrobatics required to effectively use that stuff and let us in on the action. That’s what everyone wants to see. Who cares who hates whom? There’s also a character that had his jaw line cut. If he takes the fasteners out, he could open up really wide and do some damage. It took a long time to see it in action and the visual effect of it looked horrible and (once again) disappointing.
Here’s a piece of Japanese cinema that should have stayed in comic book/manga form. Actually, I take that back. It should have been made into a movie, but a much better one. Either modify or forget the storyline. Add more visible action. Stop the visual effect overload. Make it much less annoying and much shorter. Then get back to me.
+++++++++
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
The dead just keep on living. They’ve started to run amok across the nation and probably the world. They’re everywhere and they’re hungry for living tissue. The only option is to run, but pretty soon, no place will be safe. What do you do? Well, if you’re like the characters in the movie, you gather up as many survivors as possible and head to the mall. Seal it off and try to think of a game plan.
I have not yet seen the original (as of May 2004), so I can’t compare the two. Maybe not knowing what George A. Romero did with the 1978 version enhanced my enjoyment of this contemporary film.
The zombies look just about like you’d expect, which actually is saying a lot. Many zombie movies seem to half-ass the make-up, because they’ll be far away and not all that visible (right “House of the Dead?”). Here, the zombies look like the living dead, not the living pretending to be dead. There is a lot of conformity and templating involved with how they seem to have been designed. There aren’t really any standouts as far as decomposition or manner of dead is concerned. They all pretty much look the same. But they all look like zombies. And I couldn’t find a single computer generated person. Even in the wide group shots. Bravo.
That’s not to say they didn’t use computer effects. The large scale destruction shots near the beginning of the film make obvious use of the computer as people get run over and massive fires get started. It looks really hokey and fake and at the time, I assumed it was intentional. At this early point, I thought we could expect more of the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the movie pokes fun at the genre. Too many horror films seem to rely on that these days. I’m happy to announce that “Dawn of the Dead” does not.
In fact, the approach is far different from any of the recent horror movies I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t know if I should credit the original or this outing. The zombies move faster and are rather menacing. The suspense level is high when it needs to be with few false alarms, just delayed inevitable jumps and scares. The credits hooked me right away. They mix title cards with flashes of attacks, gore and hinting at the ensuing national chaos. The music choice mixed blatantly obvious hardcore fare with more intelligent satirical songs that still measure on the creepiness scale. What really stands out though, is the characterization.
Each person has a backstory. Each person has proper motivation. Each person has a personality and depth. And the acting is very natural and, dare I say, good. How often can you say that in this genre? The dialogue moves along smoothly and the entire plot and storyline goes off without a hitch. There are no laughable moments except for those intentionally placed. The film swiftly runs its course without sacrificing good storytelling. The only big thing is that zombies aren’t really explained, but it’s scarier that way and not really needed once you get into the movie (which shouldn’t take long). A lot of credit has to be given to director Zack Snyder, especially with this being his big-time debut. I look forward to seeing what he does next. Also, to the writer, James Gunn, whom I panned in my review of “Scooby-Doo” saying he should go back to Troma. I guess I should have he should go back to horror. He seems to have a knack for it.
It’s rare that a horror movie comes along that is actually satisfying. It may not scare the audience non-stop, but it proves that something good can come out of the genre. Let’s hope Hollywood starts making more like this one.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home